As nerdy as it sounds, a book that I can really relate to would be Harry Potter. By no means are my parents dead, and I didn't live in a broom closet under the stairs, but it was a book that my dad would read to me every night. We would look forward to finding out what happens to the famous Harry Potter. Even though Harry Potter doesn't have a traditional family, his family of close friends and professors reminded me a lot of my own. I too agree that people don't have to be related to you by blood for you to consider them your family. Plus, the relationship that Harry had with Professor Dumbledore was close to what kind of relationship I had with my dad. I know I could go to him with anything, and he may not always give me the answer straight away, but he let me figure it out for myself.
Another way I could relate to this book was the fact that Harry Potter was nearly the same age as I was when my dad and I first started to read the series. I loved the fact that sometimes Harry would encounter the same problems that I faced in my life. Granted, he could almost always fix his problem with a little bit of magic, but I liked the fact that it humanized him. I like that he wasn't always perfect and got into trouble once in a while. It's strange to think, but I truly "grew up" with Harry. When the final book came out, my heart pained when I finished it because I knew it was truly the end. For seven years I had learned so much about a magical world that sometimes I felt like I was actually there.
The Harry Potter series made an incredable impact on so many young adults lives. Even though Harry lived in a made up world, almost everyone could still relate to the many adventures he went on or problems he faced. The series may be finished, but I will always remember my Dad and I reading those books every night.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
Aug 28, 2012
Eating, one of my favorite ways to indulge into one of Mother Nature's most precious gifts. When I saw the title of the book I was immediately fascinated and wanted to know more. I had always thought myself to be a pretty good eater, in that I try to eat all my fruits, veggies and stay away from the over processed food. Barbara Kingsolver certainly proved me wrong in her book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. I also didn't know much about farming, other than that my grandparents survived off of it, and how to take care of the small garden that my family has in the backyard. It only took me a couple of pages to realize that farming is a serious business, I applaud the Kingsolver family for uprooting themselves from Arizona and replanting themselves in the North Carolina soil.
"We're a nation with an eating disorder" (Kingsolver 13). Right away this quote stuck out to me as I was reading. I honestly couldn't have stated it any better myself. As the book progressed, I realized that our nation is in serious trouble, but what's worse, is that it is going to take quite a few years to even remotely regain what we have lost. America is swimming in fry oil; however, it also came to my attention that a new movement is currently underway to restore America's "genuine food culture." I love how Kingsolver is able to break away from the industrial food line and, in a sense, find the cure to our great eating disorder through growing her own food.
Following this family through all of the vegetable seasons blew my mind! I, like every other industrialized family, had become accustom to eating everything out of season. It was so much easier to simply pick up a can of corn for dinner than actually wait for corn season to roll around again. "A season of foods unfolding as if from one single plant... We'll call it vegetannual" (Kingsolver 63-65). The point being that any part of the plant can become a food. This was Kingsolver's explanation to why American's seem to be eating more fruits and vegetables out of season. We don't understand that there is an order to each season of harvests.
Another aspect of the book that I truly enjoyed was that every few pages there was an absolutely delicious sounding recipe using all of the fresh ingredients grown from the garden. It was extremely hard to read through these on an empty stomach! I did find, however, that these recipes came in handy. Through my family's health insurance, my mom signed up for a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farmers co-op. Through this, our health insurance encourages families to eat more farm fresh fruits and vegetables by offering to pay for half of the cost. Every week we pick up a box full of fruits and veggies that were picked hours ago. Some of the vegetables, collard greens and chorizo, we didn't exactly know how to cook them or what to do with them, this is where the book came in handy! All of a sudden my book became a delicious cook book that my family could choose dinner from and we got to taste all the fresh ingredients in each meal.
By the end of the book, I wanted to go out and make a garden for myself. The way I see food today has changed because of this book. I learned a lot about farming that I never knew before. It's almost too bad that more people don't know about the benefits from all these fresh veggies, but I'm glad people like Kingsolver has spoken about her adventure in sustaining her family off only the things that grow from her backyard. It's time to get our hands dirty and start bringing fresh produce back into our households. I'm glad to say that I am part of the movement to bring back America's genuine food culture.
The Perfect Non-Crime
Thursday, August 23, 2012
This essay came to my attention after hearing about all the violent acts of
crime happening not only in the United States, but also locally in Wisconsin.
The author, Michael L. Rich, brings a compelling argument to the table and
questions just how far authorities can push the line of punishment until they
are violating people's personal freedom.
Rich's largest argument in the essay was about the distinction between mere thoughts and actions. I didn't realize that there was an entire section to our law system that has to do with so-called strict-liability offenses. In this category of crime, the crimes committed are forbidden regardless of the actor's state of mind. It was at this point that I started to disagree with what Rich had to say."In such cases, using technology to prevent the crime entirely would not unduly burden individual freedom; it would simply be effective enforcement of the statute" (Rich 3). He goes on to explain that if there was only some sort of technology that had the ability to read citizen's minds and assess if that person was mentally unstable or not. Almost like a sort of mind reading device. In my mind, I would not like the government to intrude on my personal thoughts. The line must be drawn in the sand at some point. Although Rich may be on the right track to crime prevention, I couldn't get past this major flaw in his argument.
The other flaw in his argument that I found while reading was about having breathalyzers installed into every car. "The program, the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, is developing in-vehicle technology that automatically checks a driver's blood-alcohol level and, if that level is above the legal limit, prevents the car from starting" (Rich 1). I understand that drunken driving is a growing concern especially in Wisconsin; however, what if you were the person who was the designated driver for the night out with your friends? With that many drunk people in your car would the car not start? I do agree that if the company were to perfect this technology that it would practically deprive people of the choice to commit the crime in the first place. As for right now however, I feel that the technology is too premature and still needs reconsideration and further evaluation.
This essay gives a new look to how people commit crimes, and just how far the authorities can go to stop them. It is certainly hard to stop a lot of these crimes without infringing on people's personal freedom. We must draw the line in the sand somewhere!
Rich's largest argument in the essay was about the distinction between mere thoughts and actions. I didn't realize that there was an entire section to our law system that has to do with so-called strict-liability offenses. In this category of crime, the crimes committed are forbidden regardless of the actor's state of mind. It was at this point that I started to disagree with what Rich had to say."In such cases, using technology to prevent the crime entirely would not unduly burden individual freedom; it would simply be effective enforcement of the statute" (Rich 3). He goes on to explain that if there was only some sort of technology that had the ability to read citizen's minds and assess if that person was mentally unstable or not. Almost like a sort of mind reading device. In my mind, I would not like the government to intrude on my personal thoughts. The line must be drawn in the sand at some point. Although Rich may be on the right track to crime prevention, I couldn't get past this major flaw in his argument.
The other flaw in his argument that I found while reading was about having breathalyzers installed into every car. "The program, the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, is developing in-vehicle technology that automatically checks a driver's blood-alcohol level and, if that level is above the legal limit, prevents the car from starting" (Rich 1). I understand that drunken driving is a growing concern especially in Wisconsin; however, what if you were the person who was the designated driver for the night out with your friends? With that many drunk people in your car would the car not start? I do agree that if the company were to perfect this technology that it would practically deprive people of the choice to commit the crime in the first place. As for right now however, I feel that the technology is too premature and still needs reconsideration and further evaluation.
This essay gives a new look to how people commit crimes, and just how far the authorities can go to stop them. It is certainly hard to stop a lot of these crimes without infringing on people's personal freedom. We must draw the line in the sand somewhere!
Gun Control Not the Answer
Friday, August 10, 2012
In
light of the recent Aurora and Sikh Temple shooting, people have started to
wonder if something should be done about current gun control laws. The ultimate
goal being to stop these terrible crimes from occurring altogether; however, how
to reach this goal has sparked some major debate. An anonymous writer on
123HelpMe.com has taken steps to further look into both sides of the argument to
see if one comes out victorious over the other. As I was reading, several quotes
came to my attention.
The
first quote that stuck out in my mind was when the author was reviewing the
second amendment of the constitution dealing with the right to bear arms. "The
Amendment is really saying two things at once," the author states. He or she
explains that the second amendment may be interpreted differently in recent
years. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The first part deals with the maintaining of a national militia to protect the
freedom of the country. The second part states that it is the right of the
people to bear arms, not the army; however, isn't the army made up of people? If
there wasn't any people, we wouldn't have an army.
When
the author went into detail as to how the Amendment is saying two different
things at once, it made me stop and think which way the correct interpretation
was. I had never noticed that the Amendment protects the right of people and the
militia all in one. However, the United States no longer has a true militia. I
wondered if the Amendment would read any differently if our government were to
rewrite it to fit current times.
"This
is true, but it has been proven that it is kids that are around guns that are
actually safer than those who aren't," this is the second quote that came to my
attention as I was reading. The idea behind adding this bit of information into
the essay was to add a concrete fact to support the anti gun control argument.
Although
this fact or statement may be convincing, once I did further investigation as to
where the author pulled this bit of information from, I actually found that it
was from the NRA website. The only reason this quote came to my attention was
because I found it hard to believe. I understand that it is a great counter
argument, but I found from better sources (i.e. my mother) that the three
leading causes of death in teenagers is drunk driving, suicide, and homicide. I
know for a fact that you need a weapon of some sort 90% of the time for the last
two causes. If the government repeals all gun control laws then we might see a
significant increase in the last two causes of death in teenagers. Don't get me
wrong, it makes a great counter argument, but I just don't think it is a very
concrete fact.
The
last quote I could completely agree with when it comes to this topic. "That is
why it is better to teach people to use firearms properly; this will prevent
accidents from happening..." The essay goes on to state even more evidence of
countries who have trained a large percentage of the population on how to handle
fire arms, and in return the country saw a significant drop in crime rate. I
thought this quote was the most compelling quote in the whole essay, and I feel
it may be the answer to our problems. More research may have to be done to make
sure that it truly works, but it is defiantly a step in the right direction.
A Vindication of the Rights of Women
Sunday, July 29, 2012
What an interesting essay! I had mixed feelings at some points in the essay, but
one could really tell that Mary Wollstonecraft was extremely passionate about
what she was saying. I was split down the middle on if I truly agreed or
disagreed with this essay. There are a couple of spots that I can argue both
sides, so I will analyze both to be fair.
From a woman's point of view.
When I write from this point of view, one saying comes to mind. Well behaved women don't make history. I feel that this may sum up what Wollstonecraft was trying to get across to the male population. Now a days, women sometimes take for granted how much freedom we have because these very loud and rambunctious women already stood up for our rights. This line from the essay is a perfect example, "How grossly do they insult us who thus advise us only to render ourselves gentle, domestic brutes!" (Wollstonecraft 1). Wollstonecraft has realized that men seem to keep us in a state of "childhood" because men thought us to be inferior, and to be honest, I would be furious too. Wollstonecraft explains that to be a women is almost a curse, and there is nothing we can do about it. I am glad that women like this realized this inequality early and helped reshape our society so women, like myself, can live with the same opportunities that men have.
From a male's point of view.
This essay can be a little maddening if you don't have the right mind set. The one thing I didn't enjoy about this essay was that Wollstonecraft almost completely tore apart the male population and belittle their very existence. "Husbands, as well as their helpmates, are often only overgrown children" (Wollstonecraft 4). How insulting?! I realize that maybe some men act like this, but there are far more dignified and noble men to outnumber that slim percentage. I couldn't get over the fact that Wollstonecraft continued to point figures at the male population, and maybe she had the right to, but she didn't have to be so harsh in my opinion. The most important thing to keep in mind when reading this essay is what time period it was written in. I once heard someone explaining to someone else that men thought it was the gentlemen thing to do to keep women out of politics and government because it would mean that women wouldn't have to bear that burden. Men took it over so women wouldn't have to.
Overall I enjoyed the essay, but I would have liked to hear both sides of the argument instead of just one.
From a woman's point of view.
When I write from this point of view, one saying comes to mind. Well behaved women don't make history. I feel that this may sum up what Wollstonecraft was trying to get across to the male population. Now a days, women sometimes take for granted how much freedom we have because these very loud and rambunctious women already stood up for our rights. This line from the essay is a perfect example, "How grossly do they insult us who thus advise us only to render ourselves gentle, domestic brutes!" (Wollstonecraft 1). Wollstonecraft has realized that men seem to keep us in a state of "childhood" because men thought us to be inferior, and to be honest, I would be furious too. Wollstonecraft explains that to be a women is almost a curse, and there is nothing we can do about it. I am glad that women like this realized this inequality early and helped reshape our society so women, like myself, can live with the same opportunities that men have.
From a male's point of view.
This essay can be a little maddening if you don't have the right mind set. The one thing I didn't enjoy about this essay was that Wollstonecraft almost completely tore apart the male population and belittle their very existence. "Husbands, as well as their helpmates, are often only overgrown children" (Wollstonecraft 4). How insulting?! I realize that maybe some men act like this, but there are far more dignified and noble men to outnumber that slim percentage. I couldn't get over the fact that Wollstonecraft continued to point figures at the male population, and maybe she had the right to, but she didn't have to be so harsh in my opinion. The most important thing to keep in mind when reading this essay is what time period it was written in. I once heard someone explaining to someone else that men thought it was the gentlemen thing to do to keep women out of politics and government because it would mean that women wouldn't have to bear that burden. Men took it over so women wouldn't have to.
Overall I enjoyed the essay, but I would have liked to hear both sides of the argument instead of just one.
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Sunday, July 15, 2012
I thought this essay was extremely relatable with some arguments. I can agree that my concentration also starts to drift off after two or three large pages of text. I couldn't help but have this phrase continuously echo through my mind as I tried to get through all seven pages of text. I found that this essay brings up a largely debatable topic that most adults are facing today.
As I was reading this essay, my phone vibrated indicating I had a new message. The message was from another classmate who had asked what the essay I was reading was about. It was then that it dawned on me that the current age of young adults is only give 160 characters to write the exact same information a seven page essay explained. I have a feeling that this may have something to do with the argument. The young adults are always trying to find a faster way to get right to the point in the new media messaging. I personally like this. I like it when people can be straight forward and get right to the point.
Total Eclipse
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Let me start off by saying that I am seriously struggling to figure out how this website works. If anyone has some helpful hints, anything would help at this point.
Anyways, when I first started reading this essay, I was completely thrown for a loop. The first question I had about this essay came with the second paragraph. I had no idea where Annie Dillard was going with the several paragraphs worth of descriptions of the one painting of a clown made out of vegetables. I thought it sounded super creepy as she started to explain it, but when I continued to read more about how this painting impacted her life, it made me think that this painting is somewhat of an eclipse on her life. Just like the eclipse she witnesses later, the painting is a small, minor event in her life, and yet creates such a huge impact on the rest of her life.
On page 481, I made a connection to the clown painting when Dillard was explaining how the earth looked as the sun slowly slipped behind the moon. She explains that everything is "wrong."
"The sun was going, and the world was wrong. The grasses were wrong; they were platinum. Their every detail of stem, head, and blade shone lightless and artificially distinct as an art photographer's platinum print. This color has never been seen on earth. The hues were metallic; their finish was matte."
This made me think of the clown painting again where everything is, again "wrong." One of the reasons she was so taken back by the clown painting was because of the fact that it was made out of vegetables. A clown is obviously not made out of vegetables, but it makes the mind take a second look at it because it is not what it normally sees. With the eclipse, it is the exact same logic. All the colors of the world are "wrong," but it makes the mind look at it in a new or different light.
At some parts, I must admit I got a little lost. I didn't understand why Dillard kept making all these dead people references. What do dead people have to do with an eclipse of the sun? I also didn't understand why she had to go on for the better part of four pages explaining how the sun looked behind the moon, and she could have summed it all up with "it looks like a life saver." That was a little annoying, but overall it was a very thought provoking essay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)